Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Dickieboy said:

Are you KIDDING??? The market dove once opened after 9/11.

The government CAN produce jobs but HOW are they going to pay for them? Tax the rich??? And what is the collective income of the 'rich'? Around $2t annually (per irs.com). And our deficits have been how much?

I guess you could say that those in poverty are not the 'rich' so everyone else IS. So lets raise taxes on all those making above $25k/yr so that we can put others to work. Sounds like redistribution to me...and that has worked SO well in history.

Click to expand...

dem tax schemes have never been about efficient collection of revenue. Their beloved death tax wastes more money in avoidance, evasion and compliance than the tax brings it. Its all about pandering to their base and their base's base instincts of class envy and economic vandalism (if I cannot be rich the government should punish those who are).

whysoserious said:

Whoa, those are the numbers buddy. Can you disprove them? I tried to talk to you about context, and every time you said that those were real numbers and context didn't matter. Well guess what, so are these. Obviously you are too thick to understand that I am only parodying your "numbers" with numbers of my own. What do my numbers mean? Nothing, just like yours mean nothing because neither of them have context.


But as long as you keep spamming that nonsense, I'll be right here spamming it next to you:






Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.

Click to expand...

My so called spam relates to the thread topic, yours are downright distortions of past history. You apparently don't understand the difference. It does appear that you don't realize when Obama economic policy was passed into law and thus went into effect nor do you understand anything about what Reagan inherited nor when his or Bush's economic policies went into effect. I purposely put 2011 economic results in the numbers and compared those results to when he took office. why aren't you doing the same thing with Reagan and Bush. Further the 2011 GDP is quite different than the 2010 numbers showing the trends which you seem so concerned about as not being positive.

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)

Conservative said:

My so called spam relates to the thread topic, yours are downright distortions of past history. You apparently don't understand the difference. It does appear that you don't realize when Obama economic policy was passed into law and thus went into effect nor do you understand anything about what Reagan inherited nor when his or Bush's economic policies went into effect. I purposely put 2011 economic results in the numbers and compared those results to when he took office. why aren't you doing the same thing with Reagan and Bush. Further the 2011 GDP is quite different than the 2010 numbers showing the trends which you seem so concerned about as not being positive.

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)

Click to expand...

How are they distortions? Are they not real data? If any of that is not true, please show me Conservative. I tried to ****ing warn you about context, but you wouldn't listen.


Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.

Dickieboy said:

Are you KIDDING??? The market dove once opened after 9/11.

Click to expand...

The question is why?

The government CAN produce jobs but HOW are they going to pay for them? Tax the rich??? And what is the collective income of the 'rich'? Around $2t annually (per irs.com). And our deficits have been how much?

Click to expand...

By increasing the number of employed and improving the economy, there will be more revenue with which to reduce deficits.

I guess you could say that those in poverty are not the 'rich' so everyone else IS. So lets raise taxes on all those making above $25k/yr so that we can put others to work. Sounds like redistribution to me...and that has worked SO well in history.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that, you are just being silly now.

Misterveritis said:

In October when it began to look as if the Marxist would be elected businesses fired non-essential people. Of the 700,000 who lost their jobs, 100,000 may have lost them because he was elected. Then, in Dec, 2008, Jan, Feb and March the number stayed above 700,000 losses per month. The graph ends in April 2011. It is now October of 2011. What does it look like with the additional nearly two years of data?

Click to expand...

First... Marxist president. You are deluded with hate.
Second... You speculate that the jobs lost on Obama's first month, before he could make any policies and have those policies make have any effect is still his fault because you pulled out of your ass "100,000 may have lost them because he was elected."

LOL!!!!!!!

Who needs facts when you can just go with "may have...(pull fake speculation out of your bitter butt)"?

Misterveritis said:

What is the cumulative job loss, say from Dec 07 to the present? Do we have a net gain in jobs, or a net loss of jobs? We know the answer is a net loss of jobs. How many of the nearly 3 million net loss can be attributed to the numbers between Dec 07 and Dec 08, when President Bush was still in office? Was it about 2 million (just from eyeballing the graph)? How many jobs do we need for the private sector to create to have full employment? Why won't the private sector create those jobs?

Click to expand...

There you go.

The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
linkypoo...

Click to expand...

You're boy Bush was a total economic failure as was his dad.

whysoserious said:

Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.

Click to expand...

Source please.

whysoserious said:

How are they distortions? Are they not real data? If any of that is not true, please show me Conservative. I tried to ****ing warn you about context, but you wouldn't listen.


Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.

Click to expand...

The data below is 2 3/4 into the Obama Administration, you did no such thing with either Bush or Reagan

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)

Catawba said:

The question is why?



By increasing the number of employed and improving the economy, there will be more revenue with which to reduce deficits.



No one is suggesting that, you are just being silly now.

Click to expand...

Who is silly?
Why? Because three planes flew into three buildings...Would you want us to believe that this would happen and we would not react? It is YOUR opinion that there was any overeaction. You cannot argue that the amount of reaction is subjective. But planes into buildings and market dives are FACTS...?

No, employing more and paying them by taken from others does not increase revenue but merely redistributes it. What is the definition of the 'revenue' that you speak of? What product does the government produce that is valuble to the market?

The question still remains...how would you pay for this increase in public employees? We are already overspending.

poweRob said:

First... Marxist president. You are deluded with hate.
Second... You speculate that the jobs lost on Obama's first month, before he could make any policies and have those policies make have any effect is still his fault because you pulled out of your ass "100,000 may have lost them because he was elected."

LOL!!!!!!!

Who needs facts when you can just go with "may have...(pull fake speculation out of your bitter butt)"?

View attachment 67117466



View attachment 67117467

There you go.



You're boy Bush was a total economic failure as was his dad.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for the chart showing private sector growth. Doubt you ever checked out what you posted because that is what you want to believe Here are the private sector numbers that should have been used for that chart

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Original Data Value

Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 111634 111624 111555 111227 111146 110910 110737 110544 110276 109918 109575 109368
2002 109214 109054 108989 108892 108814 108824 108732 108671 108659 108772 108758 108595
2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724
2004 108882 108913 109213 109437 109747 109841 109883 109984 110135 110465 110493 110624
2005 110718 110949 111095 111441 111583 111847 112122 112311 112392 112492 112796 112934
2006 113247 113533 113795 113961 113965 114049 114200 114347 114432 114438 114628 114803
2007 114993 115051 115251 115308 115419 115469 115486 115391 115396 115470 115568 115606
2008 115610 115482 115395 115209 114969 114752 114487 114170 113736 113245 112458 111822
2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109170 109212 109349

Let's see if you can figure out that 110.981 million is more than 109.349 million. Looks like it is 1.6 million less than when he took office

Dickieboy said:

Source please.

Click to expand...

Where are you on Conservative's unsourced nonstop cut & pastes garbage? lol

poweRob said:

Where are you on Conservative's unsourced nonstop cut & pastes garbage? lol

Click to expand...

I found all his stuff as he provided the source. So far his data has checked to the number but still some are left to search out. I'm afraid that some of your's doesn't quite match some of the data I found but maybe BEA, UST and BLS do not reflect your data.

Again, source please.

Dickieboy said:

Who is silly?

Click to expand...

You are for suggesting we tax people more if they make more than $25,000 a year.

Why? Because three planes flew into three buildings...

Click to expand...

How did that result in stocks falling?

No, employing more and paying them by taken from others does not increase revenue but merely redistributes it.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it redistributes it so that consumers have enough money to be consumers vs the redistribution over the last 30 years from the middle class to the rich, which has only resulted in higher debt and a lower standard of living for the middle class

What is the definition of the 'revenue' that you speak of?

Click to expand...

The tax revenues taken in by the government.

What product does the government produce that is valuble to the market?

Click to expand...

All the infrastructure and services the rich utilize to create wealth.

The question still remains...how would you pay for this increase in public employees? We are already overspending.

Click to expand...

Just as outlined in the American Jobs Act, by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. It does not increase our debt by a penny.

Catawba said:

You are for suggesting we tax people more if they make more than $25,000 a year.

Click to expand...

No, merely inquiring how one defines 'rich'. If it is 'not poor, i.e. in poverty' then yes, the low end of the bracket is around $25k/yr.

Catawba said:

How did that result in stocks falling?

Click to expand...

You missed the point. A reaction, or 'over-reaction' requires an intitial action. Would the market have fallen if the planes had NOT hit the building?

Catawba said:

Exactly, it redistributes it so that consumers have enough money to be consumers vs the redistribution over the last 30 years from the middle class to the rich, which has only resulted in higher debt and a lower standard of living for the middle class

Click to expand...

HUH? You take from consumers via taxation then create new employees, give them the taken money and the consumers have more??? How does that work? The rich are going to get theirs as the BANKING system is gamed for them to capitalize on it. The 'poor' can also if they tried. But your supposition to correct this is to hire more government employees is misdirected resources.

Catawba said:

All the infrastructure and services the rich utilize to create wealth.

Click to expand...

Do the 'rich' have exclusive rights to the infrastructure? Aren't all those who use infrastructure ABLE to use it to create wealth?

Catawba said:

Just as outlined in the American Jobs Act, by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. It does not increase our debt by a penny.

Click to expand...

Have you read the AJA? Specifically the revenue tables that TRY to justify the 'does not increase our debt by a penny'? How about the CBO reveiew of said act? Or more specifically the caveats used to substantiate the position?

Dickieboy said:

I found all his stuff as he provided the source. So far his data has checked to the number but still some are left to search out. I'm afraid that some of your's doesn't quite match some of the data I found but maybe BEA, UST and BLS do not reflect your data.

Again, source please.

Click to expand...

I think you are touch confused. You were talking to someone else about their sources. If you want my sources you'll find them in this post. And unlike Conservative's, you'll find them exactly where I linked them. No hunting. No deception. Right there.

poweRob said:

I think you are touch confused. You were talking to someone else about their sources. If you want my sources you'll find them in this post. And unlike Conservative's, you'll find them exactly where I linked them. No hunting. No deception. Right there.

Click to expand...

You seem to be one of the few that doesn't understand how to use BLS but have no problem copying and pasting a chart from a leftwing website that doesn't tell the who story. Private sector growth hasn't been enough to create more private sector jobs than what Obama inherited and in fact is still 1.6 million less. Apparently spending trillions of taxpayer money to generate a net job loss is a good thing for you if that trend is up almost 3 years later.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Click on private sector jobs and the go to the bottom and click on retrieve data. get your wife to help you if you cannot figure it out. My 11 year old granddaughter figured it out so I am sure that one of America's finest can do it as well.

Conservative said:

You seem to be one of the few that doesn't understand how to use BLS but have no problem copying and pasting a chart from a leftwing website that doesn't tell the who story. Private sector growth hasn't been enough to create more private sector jobs than what Obama inherited and in fact is still 1.6 million less. Apparently spending trillions of taxpayer money to generate a net job loss is a good thing for you if that trend is up almost 3 years later.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Click on private sector jobs and the go to the bottom and click on retrieve data. get your wife to help you if you cannot figure it out. My 11 year old granddaughter figured it out so I am sure that one of America's finest can do it as well.

Click to expand...

BLS is the source. You don't want to believe it but, too bad so sad. You are misleading people with non-historic data so that you can saddle Obama with all the ills regardless of the trends. Just like it would be wrong to do what you are doing and apply it to Bush in 2001 after he inherited the dot-com bubble burst. You fail at providing context in your zeal for trying to fix the facts around your desire to blame Obama for everything. The charts show you what has happened over time. Something you refuse to acknowledge because you want to say, "It's 2011 and Obama is president therefore it is all Obama's fault." The ultimate fail in context and honesty.

poweRob said:

First... Marxist president. You are deluded with hate.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps I can see quite clearly. No delusion. But I do hope for the Marxist president's political destruction.

poweRob said:

Second... You speculate that the jobs lost on Obama's first month, before he could make any policies and have those policies make have any effect is still his fault because you pulled out of your ass "100,000 may have lost them because he was elected."

Click to expand...

People change their behavior very quickly in the face of danger. You, perhaps, have experienced this.

I make the observation that the spike in job loss coincides with the election of the Marxist president. Are you disputing that the first really large increase (over 700,000 jobs lost) occurred in the month he was elected?

poweRob said:

You're boy Bush was a total economic failure as was his dad.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe. Some presidents preside over wartime situations and the economy take a back seat. Net 3 million jobs over 8 years? And we compare this to a net job loss under the one term Marxist president?

Misterveritis said:

Or perhaps I can see quite clearly. No delusion. But I do hope for the Marxist president's political destruction.

Click to expand...

Clearly more than you hope for the health of the country. Like I said insane hatred leads you.

Misterveritis said:

People change their behavior very quickly in the face of danger. You, perhaps, have experienced this.

I make the observation that the spike in job loss coincides with the election of the Marxist president. Are you disputing that the first really large increase (over 700,000 jobs lost) occurred in the month he was elected.

Click to expand...

I never disputed the massive drops in jobs. Never. You are making ridiculous assumptions based on no facts and you expect people to buy it solely because you want to blame Obama. It is beyond laughable.



There you go. Now you can see what happened. Economies are not exactly nimble enough to turn around on a dime unfortunately so your asinine statement that all that huge slide of Bush's loss of jobs should have all the sudden been fixed on January 20, 2009 is absurd at best. BTW Mr. Blame Obama... that january spike... 20 days of it was Bush, 11 days of it was Obama. LOL!!!

Misterveritis said:

Or perhaps I can see quite clearly. No delusion. But I do hope for the Marxist president's political destruction.


People change their behavior very quickly in the face of danger. You, perhaps, have experienced this.

I make the observation that the spike in job loss coincides with the election of the Marxist president. Are you disputing that the first really large increase (over 700,000 jobs lost) occurred in the month he was elected?

Click to expand...

Correlation does not imply causation, and you chose a fantastic example to prove that rule. There is simply no way someone can cause 700,000 jobs to be lost simply by being inaugurated.

poweRob said:

I think you are touch confused. You were talking to someone else about their sources. If you want my sources you'll find them in this post. And unlike Conservative's, you'll find them exactly where I linked them. No hunting. No deception. Right there.

Click to expand...

Sorry but your first point is about Reagan ‘GDP’ but the link to the previous post you furnished included a bar graph that began in 2008-Q2 WAY after ‘the Reagan years’. Then you talk of Bush GDP changes and again the bar graph you provide does not reveal the numbers you quote.

You then jump to the misery index of Reagan but obviously didn’t read the data correctly. The month you quote as ’19.33’ is January of 1981 but he wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20. Surely you cannot hold him SOLELY accountable for this given his 10 days in office. If you had reviewed the document further you would have noted that the trend in ‘misery’ peaked in October of ’80 which could be read as ‘upon nomination and imminent election R. Reagan began to reduce the misery index’. Can that be said of BHO?

The aforementioned ‘previous post’ revealed NO Reagan employment data or source of said missing
data.

The link to ‘Why S&P’s Downgrade is No Joke’ evidently is a dead link as the article will not come up.

No hunting? NOT...No deception...NOT. Shall I continue to debunk your source as this is quite tiresome?

Misterveritis said:

Well, maybe. Some presidents preside over wartime situations and the economy take a back seat. Net 3 million jobs over 8 years? aand we compare this ti a net job loss under the one term Marxist president?

Click to expand...

Notice the graph and which presidency was headed in the wrong direction and which president was headed in the right direction.



See how the Fascist president prior to 2009 inauguration was going in the wrong direction?

Dickieboy said:

Sorry but your first point is about Reagan ‘GDP’ but the link to the previous post you furnished included a bar graph that began in 2008-Q2 WAY after ‘the Reagan years’. Then you talk of Bush GDP changes and again the bar graph you provide does not reveal the numbers you quote.

You then jump to the misery index of Reagan but obviously didn’t read the data correctly. The month you quote as ’19.33’ is January of 1981 but he wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20. Surely you cannot hold him SOLELY accountable for this given his 10 days in office. If you had reviewed the document further you would have noted that the trend in ‘misery’ peaked in October of ’80 which could be read as ‘upon nomination and imminent election R. Reagan began to reduce the misery index’. Can that be said of BHO?

The aforementioned ‘previous post’ revealed NO Reagan employment data or source of said missing
data.

The link to ‘Why S&P’s Downgrade is No Joke’ evidently is a dead link as the article will not come up.

No hunting? NOT...No deception...NOT. Shall I continue to debunk your source as this is quite tiresome?

Click to expand...

Most of the stuff on Reagan and Bush was mine. The reason I chose those numbers was because there is a member named Conservative who picked a few numbers at random as well. I was merely showing him I can do the same to any other president, and I was clearly successful.

*Edit: If you are really going to critique my stuff, you should probably read up on the thread a bit first and gain some understanding about why it was posted.

Dickieboy said:

Sorry but your first point is about Reagan ‘GDP’ but the link to the previous post you furnished included a bar graph that began in 2008-Q2 WAY after ‘the Reagan years’. Then you talk of Bush GDP changes and again the bar graph you provide does not reveal the numbers you quote.

You then jump to the misery index of Reagan but obviously didn’t read the data correctly. The month you quote as ’19.33’ is January of 1981 but he wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20. Surely you cannot hold him SOLELY accountable for this given his 10 days in office. If you had reviewed the document further you would have noted that the trend in ‘misery’ peaked in October of ’80 which could be read as ‘upon nomination and imminent election R. Reagan began to reduce the misery index’. Can that be said of BHO?

The aforementioned ‘previous post’ revealed NO Reagan employment data or source of said missing
data.

The link to ‘Why S&P’s Downgrade is No Joke’ evidently is a dead link as the article will not come up.

No hunting? NOT...No deception...NOT. Shall I continue to debunk your source as this is quite tiresome?

Click to expand...

I don't think that was me making that post you are talking about.

As far as the ‘Why S&P’s Downgrade is No Joke’ article. Looks like the NationalJournal.com website is down. The whole site. When it comes back up the link should be there.

As far as the rest of the Reagan stuff... that wasn't me. You are confusing me with who you were talking to.